Aren’t the efforts by the pro-life movement designed to change the hearts of those who are pro-choice?

Mitt is the perfect example for the success of those efforts.

Since Mitt has had a change of heart because of the efforts of people like Dobson, does Dobson support Mitt as the only candidate that is pro-life?

csdeven on October 8, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Mitt explained on one of his many 100’s, or 1000’s of videos on his website that he in the past was just doing what his Mom did when running (pro-choice) for election somewhere.

But since then he and his family have slowly changed their views and Ann Romney explains it so well in an interview with Neil Cavuto from the FNC, that it came down to the embryonic stem cell research debate. And even though it was hard for her, beings she has MS, she believed it was the right thing to do.

Yes, it would be nice to show the Republicans how disappointed we are in them by refusing to vote for a Republican candidate, but we’ve kinda got a war going on and I’d hate to see that derailed by a socialist weakling like Hillary. This isn’t the right time.

The way I look at it is this way: if the Religious Right wants to take such a gamble let them. And if they end up discovering the the entire culture of the South and the Heartland is radically changed to look like New York and California and secularism radically replaces their traditions….THEY WILL HAVE BROUGHT IT ON THEMSELVES

GogglesPisano on October 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM

So the Religious Right is still controlling the GOP? Could have fooled me. They will be responsible for destroying the culture of the Bible belt if they insist upon voting their consciences? Obstinate these Christians. They refused to renounce beliefs even when the Romans burned them alive. They brought it on themselves.

Principles!! This man is either a fool or on the Clinton payroll. No one could be that short-sided and stupid to see what the out come would be for our country if Cankles is elected. I used to respect Dr. Dobson. That has gone out the window with his ego.

Winebabe on October 9, 2007 at 11:42 AM

If he is a fool he is no threat unless you believe his audience is also a pack of fools in which case how do you control them?

That is what you want to do isn’t it: control their votes? You are certainly not trying to gain their votes or you would not call them fools.

Dobson clearly shows his true colors. If he doesn’t get his way he simply picks up all his toys and leaves the sandbox. He should support a third candidate in the Constitution Party where he is better served and better suited for.

The GOP can garner votes from mainstream America easily, the Independents, the Libertarians and the Conservative Dems can and will vote Republican, we do not need the idealogues.

AprilOrit on October 9, 2007 at 11:49 AM

We do not need ideologues? In a political party?

Mainstream America will never vote for a woman, I just don’t think America is ready for that quite yet.

AprilOrit on October 9, 2007 at 12:02 PM

An ideologue would vote for a woman. Find a lover of Ronald Reagan (a great ideologue) who would not have voted for an American version of Margaret Thatcher (another beloved ideologue)

Dobson needs to stay out of politics, granted, but there’s no point in blaming him for what the Republicans have already made a demographic fait accompli. The only chance they have is to capture the white vote. Once that’s demographically marginalized, there’s not much hope for them.

PRCalDude on October 9, 2007 at 11:48 AM

Not granted

Dobson is not in politics, neither running for office nor running any party. He is in free speech which he needs to be allowed to practice. No one has to listen. No one will listen unless they like his arguments

This thread is very bad news to me. It says that the sledge hammer is out even before the primaries. Obedience is required or we are traitors. If the GOP chosen one is not elected it is the fault of the Christians. The Christians have ruined America. Yada yada yada.

Yes, seriously, because you cannot apply YOUR personal beliefs onto what historical figures were doing and discussing in their time.

I guess President Lincoln missed that lecture.

Highly amusing:
Daddy Dobson says if the GOP doesn’t nominate a hard core pro-lifer, he’ll support a 3rd party candidate. And he admits that it will probably help Dem front runner, Hillary Clinton.
Once sued for RICO in conjunction with Abortion Cl…

Are you suggesting that there can be no real application to the principles of the Constitution outside of what the Framers had in mind in the 18th Century.

Seriously?

leavenedbread on October 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Yes, seriously, because you cannot apply YOUR personal beliefs onto what historical figures were doing and discussing in their time.

I’m stating the facts within the context of Revolutionary-era American history, and you’re attempting to apply your 21st Century personal beliefs about a topic which the Founding Fathers did not have on their minds when they were writing the Declaration of Independence.

It seems that you’ve conveniently ignored the historical facts and context to further your agenda. That qualifies as revisionist history.

According to your logic, President Lincoln was way out of line when he said, Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The line, “all men are created equal” could not possibly be used to support the cessation of slavery because that is not what the Framers had in mind (most of them were slave owners).

leavenedbread on October 10, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Red herring.

So now we are in the primaries and we don’t like the liberal Republican, but other Republicans are already defeatists, wanting to settle for Guiliani. “He’s our only hope.” They think that by going left, we will be able to win. Wrong! Bush and the Reps went left during 2004-2006, signing every spending bill possible and trying to nominate Harriet Meirs and pass amnesty. Reps got slaughtered.

Apparently you don’t know much about American history and the context in which the phrase “…Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” came about.

Do you believe and think that the Founding Fathers were talking about the unborn when they wrote the phrase “…Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence? Seriously?

The Founders were referring to the STATE or the KING (in their case) or QUEEN having the ability to take a life with a flick of the wrist — off with your head — without due process of law.

If you believe otherwise, then this is factually and historically incorrect and what appears to be a deliberate form of historical revisionism.

eanax on October 9, 2007 at 1:30 PM

According to your logic, President Lincoln was way out of line when he said, Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. The line, “all men are created equal” could not possibly be used to support the cessation of slavery because that is not what the Framers had in mind (most of them were slave owners). Are you suggesting that there can be no real application to the principles of the Constitution outside of what the Framers had in mind in the 18th Century. Seriously?

King of the Britons on October 9, 2007 at 2:08 PM

I think Paul supporters are well intentioned but never the less, misguided. All his theories sound good and look good on paper, but most will never work in real life. You are overly idealistic. You cannot be an isolationist in todays world. The framers of the constitution could not have envisioned the global community we live in today, so constantly referring to it in every case is wrong.

One issue that I have with him is his insistence that we are at fault for most of the problems in the world today. He blames us for Iran and 9/11. This is absolutely ignorant.

The war on terror is another issue. The Jihadists have had their eyes on world domination for centuries and the idea that we are responsible is willful ignorance of the truth.

The man that believes that is not fit to be the most powerful person in the world.

1. We could do with less name-calling on our side among fellow Republicans, just as we could do with fewer third-party warnings of the kind that Dr. Dobson has been floating.

When pols like Hillary ‘float’ a position they are testing the waters to see if it will fly in the polls. I do not think Dobson is ‘floating’ threats to see if he can shake the GOP with a threat of a suicidal tantrum. He is positing that there is a limit to what he will support. He is stating this because the GOP has become a top-down organization. The top is no longer responding to the bottom, it is attempting to control the bottom. That works better with amoral drones than men of conscience.

2. The most solidly and uncompromisingly conservative candidates probably have the least chance of winning. That’s probably due to their particular backgrounds and biographies, but it also may tell us something about where the party may be heading.

It does not tell us where the party may be heading, it tells us where the party is, controlled from the top, and preventing the most solidly conservative candidates from having a voice. It is at the same suicidal position as in the Rockefeller days when Reagan appeared as the white knight to give a voice to conservatism and route the country-clubbers.

I guess after the fiasco of a successful conservative President (Reagan, not Bush) the country clubbers vowed never again to let the hateful voice of conservatism be heard connected to the GOP. They have attempted to redefine the Conservative Christians as destroyers of conservatism should they not accept the leaders chosen by the top

A useful scapegoat is the next best thing to a useful idiot

3. And the rest of the GOP will end up blaming him and social conservatives for her ascension to power.

Not the rest of the GOP. The part of the GOP base that accepts the mantra from the top.

I listened to part of the Hannity coverage of the debate. A female caller told Hannity that Dr. Dobson’s words came dangerously close to interfering with the separation of Church and State! She had definitely taken the bait, to think that separation of Church and State meant that a religious leader could not make political declartions.

That would have eliminated man of faith Patrick Henry from declaring “Give me Liberty or give me Death’

An I do believe that the GOP would happily take down any modern day Patrick Henry who interfered with the program – a program that stands against Reagan conservatism

Fixed that for you.

MikeZero on October 9, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Dobson’s running for President?

If you want a Hillary or another Dem in the White House, why don’t you just say so…

eanax

I hate the idea of it but why should social conservatives be the ones that have to vote for a candidate that doesn’t represent us? You can always switch your vote to our candidate. If you are unwilling to do so then don’t expect me to do so either.

Basically, if you’re a social conservative, shut up, vote how you’re told, and get used to publicly funded abortion clinics. That’s pretty much the Dobson line.

Fixed that for you.

Good way to build a coalition, guys. And you say the SoCons are intransigent a-holes.

I can’t think of an election in which I’ve done anything other than vote for the least-bad candidate. A candidate one could actually feel good about would be “extraordinary and without example.” Moreover, such talent would be wasted on public office.

Kralizec on October 8, 2007 at 11:38 PM

I too feel that most of my votes have gone to the “lessor of two evils” but not all do. The first two times I was able to vote for a president I voted for Reagan. The best president we’ve had in my lifetime IMHO. I also happen to be very fond of Representative John Mica who I’ve had the chance to vote for a couple of times. Dr Dobson should look at history and relize that his kind of thinking gave us the Ross Perot campaign and a Clinton presidency. I like Mike! Huckabee in 08! (you know, the guy with the funny name.)

While he may believe in many of the principles the Founders espoused, that doesn’t mean he would be able to magically make those principles return. This country has been moving away slowly from the Founders’ ideals for over a hundred years.

Returning to such would take gigantic changes in attitudes and beliefs…
eanax on October 9, 2007 at 3:49 PM

So you believe that Paul does espouse the ideals and philosophy of the Founders but, even so, there is no way he could get there from here . . .so you will vote for a big government, establishment, Republican Politician. Makes sense.

King of the Britons on October 9, 2007 at 7:10 PM

You didn’t read what I wrote thoroughly. I said: “…he (Ron Paul) may believe in many of the principles the Founders espoused, that doesn’t mean he would be able to magically make those principles return.”

Ron Paul alone will not turn the ship U.S.S. America around. Like I mentioned, gigantic changes in attitudes and beliefs are in order to return to the Founders’ principles. Got any odds on how long that would take, and what that would take?

Do you think we can somehow pull up to the drive-thru window and order a Founders’ combo meal with a small order of government and a large order of Liberty?

Your argument is analogous to: If you believe it is a sin for unmarried people to cohabitate and have sex, or for anyone, married or unmarried, to use birth control, and you belong to Catholic Church (which teaches the same), you cannot be in favor of allowing other people to legally do so without being a hypocrite, and that makes you unqualified to serve as president.

Which I think any reasonable person would agree is utter nonsense.

LagunaDave on October 9, 2007 at 3:21 PM

No, what I am saying is that if you believe somthing, how can you NOT take a stand against somthing you see as wrong, WHEN GIVEN THE OPTION!!!

Rudi says that abortion is wrong, but won’t overturn Roe v. Wade even if given the opportunity…

He potrays himself as a strict Constitutional Constructionist, and yet won’t condemn somthing which is NOT good Constitutional Law…

I need to know that my President’s acts are consistant with his stated beliefs, because when the Feces hits the Rotating Air Flow Device, its those BELIEFS they will act on.

Under stress, when we have to make a snap decision with limited data (oh… like an immediate response to an act of war against this country) its those BELIEFS which will dictate his actions…

Problem is that when past acts do not match rhetoric, I have no true way to judge his character, or moral strength.

And you believe Ron Paul is the answer to all of this?

ROTFLOL!!!

While he may believe in many of the principles the Founders espoused, that doesn’t mean he would be able to magically make those principles return. This country has been moving away slowly from the Founders’ ideals for over a hundred years.

Returning to such would take gigantic changes in attitudes and beliefs…
eanax on October 9, 2007 at 3:49 PM

So you believe that Paul does espouse the ideals and philosophy of the Founders but, even so, there is no way he could get there from here . . .so you will vote for a big government, establishment, Republican Politician. Makes sense.

And you believe Ron Paul is the answer to all of this?

ROTFLOL!!!

While he may believe in many of the principles the Founders espoused, that doesn’t mean he would be able to magically make those principles return. This country has been moving away slowly from the Founders’ ideals for over a hundred years.

Returning to such would take gigantic changes in attitudes and beliefs…
eanax on October 9, 2007 at 3:49 PM

So you believe that Paul does espouse the ideals and philosophy of the Founders but, even so, there is no way he could get there from here . . .so you will vote for a big government, establishment, Republican Politician. Makes sense.